Yvonne wrote:I suggest you ask those downtown citizens if JC should be in the business of giving away 99 year leases for one dollar a year or 17 acres for ten dollars. Once the city ask those citizens and they say yes, then you have the right to criticize me.

As a downtown citizen, do want the city to encourage initiatives such as this. If a $1 lease can jumpstart it I'm ok with that. If we can negotiate a better deal, I'm even more ok with that.

From the mouth of a person who owns a tax abated property. Joshua, asked a taxpayer who received a $20K to $40K tax bill. I am sure they would feel different.

Yvonne wrote:I suggest you ask those downtown citizens if JC should be in the business of giving away 99 year leases for one dollar a year or 17 acres for ten dollars. Once the city ask those citizens and they say yes, then you have the right to criticize me.

As a downtown citizen, do want the city to encourage initiatives such as this. If a $1 lease can jumpstart it I'm ok with that. If we can negotiate a better deal, I'm even more ok with that.

When you search for a Supercharger, Tesla gives info about what shops and restaurants are near the charger. This helps local business and makes a destination more desirable for EV owners.Unknown the amount of income coming in but will it help the local businesses but someone charging will know where to go shop and get a bite to eat while waiting.

Yvonne wrote:I suggest you ask those downtown citizens if JC should be in the business of giving away 99 year leases for one dollar a year or 17 acres for ten dollars. Once the city ask those citizens and they say yes, then you have the right to criticize me.

Surprise... I live directly across from the chargers on 1st St, and I am 100% OK with the city adopting and fostering EV-friendly policies. As I indicated, the EV chargers take up the same amount of space as a regular parking meter, so this is not some major land grab.

So, unlike you, who likes to opine on things that do not impact your life, or of which you know nothing, I actually live with these chargers and their implications (one of them being less street parking available) and I am 100% OK with that. I want this city to be less chaotic, less noisy, healthier, and less polluted. Why would anyone not want that?

Also, if you have a right to criticize anything and everything under the guise of "concerned citizen", that would extend to everyone, so shove it: I will continue to call you out and criticize you for your dumb ideas, misguided opinions, and lack of knowledge on just about everything you say, or state.

I suggest you ask those downtown citizens if JC should be in the business of giving away 99 year leases for one dollar a year or 17 acres for ten dollars. Once the city ask those citizens and they say yes, then you have the right to criticize me.

Yvonne wrote:I don't think this is deflection, I think this city is not in the position of give away land for 99 year lease for a dollar a year or to transfer 17 acres of land for ten dollars when the citizens are looking at $20K to $40K in new taxes. First take care of the citizens before you try the world stage. This is nothing put posturing so Fulop can be noticed outside JC. The only reason he delayed the reval was in order to do his 70 plus tax abatements and he did not want backlashed from the citizens.

"I don't think this is deflection" then you proceed to bring up two totally unrelated topics: SciCity and abatements.

You keep claiming the city is giving away 99 year lease for a dollar for EV charging stations. First, what land is being leased? And, the chargers already in place, along 1st St, do not represent any amount of significant space: the chargers take up as much as space as an old fashioned parking meter! So, what exactly about these chargers has you going so crazy??

I don't think this is deflection, I think this city is not in the position of give away land for 99 year lease for a dollar a year or to transfer 17 acres of land for ten dollars when the citizens are looking at $20K to $40K in new taxes. First take care of the citizens before you try the world stage. This is nothing put posturing so Fulop can be noticed outside JC. The only reason he delayed the reval was in order to do his 70 plus tax abatements and he did not want backlashed from the citizens.

Yvonne wrote:Here is the problem with you Brewster, you act very snooty and you are nothing but a bully. The point of this thread was to explain Fulop is wrong to give a 99 year lease for one dollar a year.

No - as the title indicates - the point of this thread was to encourage people to come to a meeting and support installing EV chargers.

Quote:

Yvonne wrote: Personally, I do not agree that municipal government should be giving any 99 year leases for one dollar a year.

This is interesting. What is it that you think the city is giving away by allowing EV chargers to occupy that space? Oh, right - free on-street parking! So the "giveaway" is actually a modest improvement over the current situation in that the city will be getting something where previously it received nothing...

Quote:

Yvonne wrote:The state government imposed a 23 cent tax on gas last year to pay for repair of roads, these electric cars are also using roads and there are no payment to the road repair as with the tax on gasoline.

This is actually an interesting point to debate. It's multi-faceted:

- Yes, EVs and other non-ICE vehicles will use the roads and not pay into their maintenance. Perhaps they should. - On the other hand, by not emitting pollutants or CO2 they are not contributing to respiratory illnesses or warming the climate. Perhaps they should be exempt from a gasoline tax equivalent because of the relative benefits they provide. - Also, by using electricity, EV owners are making greater contributions to the power grid infrastructure through the fees added into the billing for those services - maybe that's enough of an offset?- I'm not sure what happened with the state ballot initiative to change this or if/when it might go into effect if it passed, but there is no legal requirement that gasoline taxes in NJ be used for road maintenance. They should, but they haven't been. Should we be looking to expand that discretionary slush fund before it's reformed?

Yvonne wrote:Well, T-Bird, could you explain the benefit of another 99 year lease for one dollar a year for a bowling alley and beer garden? That is another give-away of city property located in Liberty State Park. Personally, I do not agree that municipal government should be giving any 99 year leases for one dollar a year. After all, gas stations are in competition with these recharge stations and they pay city and state taxes. The state government imposed a 23 cent tax on gas last year to pay for repair of roads, these electric cars are also using roads and there are no payment to the road repair as with the tax on gasoline.

Ah, the typical Yvonne deflection. When proved wrong by facts, those evil things liberals obviously invented, deflect to something else to save face and find some excuse to bash the administration.

Well, T-Bird, could you explain the benefit of another 99 year lease for one dollar a year for a bowling alley and beer garden? That is another give-away of city property located in Liberty State Park. Personally, I do not agree that municipal government should be giving any 99 year leases for one dollar a year. After all, gas stations are in competition with these recharge stations and they pay city and state taxes. The state government imposed a 23 cent tax on gas last year to pay for repair of roads, these electric cars are also using roads and there are no payment to the road repair as with the tax on gasoline.

Subsidies and government benefits the oil and natural gas companies receive, off the top of my head:

- through their financial might, the ability to influence policy in wide range of areas, including diplomacy, tax, federal land use, the environment, trade (take a look at the biggest influencers within ALEC...)- military protection and intervention on their behalf- tax abatements and tax-friendly financings (industrial revenue bonds, typically) for their refineries and chemical plants.- often the ability to walk away from environmental liabilities for pennies on the dollar (look no further than Exxon's recent Bayway/Bayonne settlement). And that's just for land and water - they almost never pay a penny for the air they pollute.- land seizures for pipelines- an entire transportation system built around the automobile that neither the carmakers nor the oil companies had to pay for, resulting in archaic policies oriented toward protecting the incumbency of that system.

Thank God, JC did not give 99 year leases when the ice man carried his ice up to the apartment buildings so families could have fresh food or a 99 lease to the coal man who deposited coal so families can heat their homes. I was very young but I still remember seeing them. Government was not that foolish to invest and give those businesses 99 year leases for one dollar a year.

Yvonne wrote:Here is the problem with you Brewster, you act very snooty and you are nothing but a bully. The point of this thread was to explain Fulop is wrong to give a 99 year lease for one dollar a year. Technology will change and that is foolish. Fifty years ago, no one thought you would have a computer that you can put in your pocket, I am referring to a cell phone, so Fulop as usual is giving away the city. Get off your high horse and stop pretending you know everything because you don't.

By your logic, there shouldn't be ANY government support for ANY technology, as it will always evolve and change. You are deluded, and a fool.

Yvonne wrote:When I was in 7th grade, during math class there was a problem on how far a car would go plotting the distance to another town. Right in the middle of the problem, my math teacher said "I want you to know I had a neighbor who figured out how to use water to power cars." He then said this formula was sold to the oil companies. His comments were totally out of character, in every aspect he was by the book teacher who took his job seriously. So don't tell there are not other ways to power cars. Water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen, if this guy figures out a way to separate those elements, then there are other ways to fuel a car.

Sometimes you come across as truly unhinged.

First of all, no one (not one person!) has claimed that electricity is the only alternative to powering cars. The claim made by AMo (which was clearly stated and argued, and happens to be completely valid, in my opinion) is that EVs are as deserving of government support as ICE vehicles, which enjoy an incredible amount of government subsidies, sometimes in ways that most people don’t even realize.

As for alternatives to oil, there are many promising alternatives, but proven alternatives are few, and electrical is here now. The benefits of EVs are many, including environmental and health ones. It should surprise NO ONE that you would oppose something new: you have amply demonstrated in the past that you are against any progress that doesn’t fit your narrow views.

Here is the problem with you Brewster, you act very snooty and you are nothing but a bully. The point of this thread was to explain Fulop is wrong to give a 99 year lease for one dollar a year. Technology will change and that is foolish. Fifty years ago, no one thought you would have a computer that you can put in your pocket, I am referring to a cell phone, so Fulop as usual is giving away the city. Get off your high horse and stop pretending you know everything because you don't.

You simply don't know when to stop digging your hole, do you? Your combination of belligerence and ignorance is simply astonishing. Any child knows hydrogen can be used as a fuel but how you get your hydrogen is what matters. I'm sure this grade school science is beyond you, but it doesn't exist free naturally. You need to expend energy freeing it from another element, usually rectifying it from a hydrocarbon thus creating carbon disposal problems, or pour energy into water to break it.

On the other hand, I'm sure that putting water into your gas tank will work for you because you truly believe, give it a go.

brewster wrote:Wow Yvonne, just when I thought our opinion if you couldn't go any lower, you show how deeply profound your ignorance is. We knew you knew nothing about math, but now we know you know nothing about science too.

Separating water by hydrolysis into hydrogen and oxygen takes more energy than you will get out of reuniting them. This is basic physics. Only an ignoramus and provocateur would repeat this ridiculous old conspiracy theory.

Wow Yvonne, just when I thought our opinion if you couldn't go any lower, you show how deeply profound your ignorance is. We knew you knew nothing about math, but now we know you know nothing about science too.

Separating water by hydrolysis into hydrogen and oxygen takes more energy than you will get out of reuniting them. This is basic physics. Only an ignoramus and provocateur would repeat this ridiculous old conspiracy theory.

When I was in 7th grade, during math class there was a problem on how far a car would go plotting the distance to another town. Right in the middle of the problem, my math teacher said "I want you to know I had a neighbor who figured out how to use water to power cars." He then said this formula was sold to the oil companies. His comments were totally out of character, in every aspect he was by the book teacher who took his job seriously. So don't tell there are not other ways to power cars. Water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen, if this guy figures out a way to separate those elements, then there are other ways to fuel a car.

Yvonne wrote:The competition for electric cars are gas cars. No one is giving gas stations one dollar a year for 99 years. Besides that there is no guarantee that the public will be using electric cars down the road. So that is a fool hardy give-away, AMo.

And once again the Yvonne Bot says "that doesn't look like anything to me" when a valid argument is made, this time that being the tremendous subsidy the petro industry has gotten from everything from the military to sweetheart drilling rights deal on Federal lands and waters.

The competition for electric cars are gas cars. No one is giving gas stations one dollar a year for 99 years. Besides that there is no guarantee that the public will be using electric cars down the road. So that is a fool hardy give-away, AMo.

So, last year, I went ahead and bought a Chevy Bolt. It's a fantastic automobile. Quiet, fast and really roomy for a very small car. Yeah, long trips can be a challenge when, after going a few hundred miles, you need to find a fast charger. But that's the exception. I'll never own another ICE car. It would be like going back to eight track tapes -- fun for hipsters maybe, but not me.

On the question of subsidies, I'd simply offer this to Yvonne and the rest of the critics. For a century, taxpayers paid for a military to keep the sea lanes open for Exxon/Essso, Chevron, Mobil et. al not to mention myriad other hidden subsidies and Middle Eastern wars. And that's putting aside the environmental externalities. So, if subsidies are required to break the hold of Big Oil, so be it.

ZippyJC wrote:There are a bunch of Tesla SuperChargers being installed on the first floor of the Newport Mall parking lot. Hopefully up and working soon.

Great news. I am really surprised at the amount of pushback the EV concept is getting, particularizing given the clear benefits it has for a densely populated area like ours. Internal combustion engines decidedly contribute to the above average incidence of pediatric asthma seen in densely populated areas. Also, electric vehicles are, without a doubt, the future, so making it easier to have one should be in line with the idea of making JC "the best mid-sized city" in the country, as desired/pursued by the current administration.

Now, if only we could get the city to enforce EV parking violations, then it all would be even better. Alas, parking enforcement in JC is a non-priority. Imagine the amount of revenue that could be generated by simple enforcement of current rules and regulations!

A lot of people are currently being screwed by the environmental effects of fracking. It's not without externalized costs. It's like if you were a wacko 60 years ago trying to get the industry of JC to stop dumping poisons all over the city, you'd be shouted down by all the people who might make less profit or lose their jobs if they had to stop. It doesn't mean they were right.